Over the past three years, several significant decisions have altered the federal pleading standard announced decades ago in the landmark case of Conley v. Gibson , 355 U.S. 41 (1957). In Conley , the Supreme Court stated that Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not require a claimant to detail the factual basis of his claim. A complaint is sufficient if it gives a defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. To be sure, Rule 8(a)(2) requires only that a complaint include a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
In 2007, this commonly known notice-pleading standard shifted to a fact based standard. In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 554 (2007), an antitrust case, the plaintiffs asserted claims including contract, combination and conspiracy. The District Court dismissed the complaint as being insufficiently pled. The Second Circuit reversed. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Supreme Court sided with the District Court. Though recognizing that the plaintiffs had alleged the elements of each claim, “on fair reading,” the Court found that the allegations were mere legal conclusions resting on the prior allegations. To satisfy Rule 8, the Court held that the complaint must include allegations plausibly suggesting, not merely consistent with, agreement. The Court criticized as “best forgotten” its statement in Conley that “a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”
